IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD
Monday, this the 25 th day of September 2017
PRESENT: SRI MOHD. NURULLAH GHORI Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad
SC No.45 OF 2014
[On committal by the Court of the II Addl.JMFC, Nizamabad in PRC No.42 of 2014 in crime No.136 of 2013 of PS Dharpally]
1. Name of the complainant The State through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad
2. Name of the accused A1: Vodde Bhaskar @ Shivarathri Bhaskar s/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, aged 46 years, caste Vaddera, Occ: Cooli R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A2: Vodde Ramulu @ Shivarathri Ramulu s/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, aged 40 years, caste Vaddara, Occ: Cooli R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A3: Mandula Muthyam s/o Lingaiah, aged 32 years, caste Mandula, Occ: Auto driver R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal
A4: Mandula Pedda Sailu @ Vonteddu Sailu, s/o Pedda Sailu, aged 35 years, caste Mandula, Occ: Mechanic R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Sigajogi Gopal @ Mandula Gopal A5: s/o Lingaiah, aged 35 years caste Mandula, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Golla Mallesh @ Radharapu A6: Mallesh s/o Muthaiah, aged 35 years caste: Yadav, Occ: Mechanic R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A7: Golla Muthaiah @ Radarapu Muthaiah s/o Buchi Mallaiah, aged 61 years caste: Golla, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
2 SC 45-2014
A8: Gandala Laxman s/o Sailoo, aged 27 years caste Gandala, Occ: Auto driver R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A9: Nymathabad Madanlal @ Katike Madanlal s/o Sharfu, aged 33 years caste Katike, Occ: caste profession R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Pinnam Rajanna @ Mekala Rajanna A10: s/o Shivalingu, aged 50 years, caste Peruka, Occ: Collie R/o Nallavelli village of Dharpally Mandal.
Bollaram Savithri w/o Gangaram, A11: aged 40 years caste Golla, Occ: Beedi roller R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Bandari Venkati @ Vodde A12: Venkati s/o Yellaiah, aged 40 years caste Voddera, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Bodasu Buchavva @ Vadde A13: Bhuchavva w/o late Narayana, aged 26 years caste Voddera, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Seetaipet Radha w/o Rajanna, A14: aged 38 years caste Golla, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Makkala Chinna Venkati @ Odde A15: Chinna Venkati s/o Makkala Venkanna, aged 50 years caste Voddera, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Ryapani Yellaiah s/o Yellanna, A16: aged 37 years caste Oddera, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
Neerati Somanna s/o Venkataiah, A17: aged 23 years caste Mudiraj, Occ: tractor driver R/o Kothapet village of Raikal Mandal of Karimnagar District.
Peddi Venkat Ramulu s/o A18: Venkaiah, aged 49 years, caste Goud (BC), Occ: Agriculture, CPM Dist. Secretary R/o H.No.6- 11-143 Namdevwada Marathi Samajhan, Nizamabad.
Shivarathri Prasad @ Vodde A19: Prasad s/o Chinna Gangaram, 3 SC 45-2014 aged 30 years caste Vaddera, Occ: Sumo driver R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A20: Bandi Yadagiri @ Tenugu Yadagiri s/o Manikyam, aged 42 years caste Mudiraj, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A21: Kunta Jamula D/o Thimmanna, aged 45 years caste OC, Occ: Anganwadi Teacher R/o H.No. 3- 68 Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A22: Makkala Laxmi @ Vadde Laxmi w/o Makkala Chinna Venkati, aged 48 years caste Voddera, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A23: Peddagolla Mallaiah @ Golla Mallaiah s/o late Rajanna, aged 70 years caste Golla, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A24: Bandi Krishnaveni w/o Yadagiri, aged 36 years caste Mudhiraj, Occ: Beedi roller R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A25: Badavath Gopal @ Lambani Gopal s/o Bavsingh, aged 40 years caste ST Lambada, Occ: Agril R/o KK Thanda Hamlet of Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A26: Singajogi Pochaiah s/o Nadipi Muthaiah, (case against him is abated)
A27: Singajogi Pochaiah s/o Pedda Muthaiah, aged 45 years, caste Mandula, Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal
A28: Mandula Lingam s/o Nadipi Sayanna, aged 25 years, caste Mandula, Occ: Agril R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal
A29: Bollaram Chinnola Pedda Gangaram @ Bollaram Gangaram s/o Venkanna, aged 48 years, caste Golla Occ: Coolie R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A30: Bollaram Chinna Gangaram @ Chinna Gangadhar s/o Yellaiah, 4 SC 45-2014 aged 33 years, caste Golla, Occ: Shepherd R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A31: Vadluri Bojaiah @ Kammari Bojaiah s/o Buchanna, aged 62 years, caste Kammari, Occ: Caste profession R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal
A32: Lingapuram Gangaram s/o Gangaram, aged 45 years, caste SC (Madiga), Occ: Agril R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A33: Karla Buchanna @ Kadaduram Bhuchanna s/o late Devaiah, aged 70 years, caste SC Madiga, Occ: Agril R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal
A34: Gandla Kala w/o Lingam, aged 36 years, caste Gandla Occ: Beedi roller R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
A35: Pitla Ramesh s/o Nadipi Ramulu, aged 40 years, Waddera, Occ: Tractor driver cum owner R/o Gadkole village of Sirikonda Mandal.
A36: Gollem Raju s/o Ramaswamy, aged 33b years, caste Waddera, Occ: Tractor driver cum owner R/o Nampally village of Vemulawada Mandal, District Karimnagar.
A37: Bandi Renuka w/o Gurumurthi, aged 35 years, caste Mudiraj Occ: Beedi Roller R/o Nallavelly village of Dharpally Mandal.
3. Offences Under section 148, 332, 307 and 302 r/w 149 IPC; Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC; Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act; Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act.
4. Plea of accused Not guilty
5. Finding of the Judge i) A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 5 SC 45-2014 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 332 r/w 149 of IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
6. Prosecution conducted by Sri Seshikaran Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad
7. Accused defended by Sri Asha Narayana, Advocate, Nizamabad.
8. Sentence or order i) A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities 6 SC 45-2014 (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for LIFE and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each.
iii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for 10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for 7 SC 45-2014 the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for 10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 148 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 found guilty for the offences u/s 148 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for TWO YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 found guilty for the offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for THREE YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each vii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14,A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and 8 SC 45-2014 they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found for the offence u/s 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for SIX MONTHS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from this day. The concerned owners ofMOs 11, 12, 26 and 27 which are Tractors bearing Nos.3724, 7763, 5749 and 8108 are directed to produce the said Tractors forthwith and Police are directed to confiscate the said Tractors to the State. MOs 1 to 10, 13 to 25 and 28 shall be shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This case coming up before me for hearing on 21.09.2017 in the presence of Sri Seshikaran Reddy, Addl. Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri Asha Narayana, advocate
for the accused persons and having stood over for
consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad, laid the charge sheet against the A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 IPC; Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act; Sec. 4 and 5 of A.P. Land
Grabbing Act and Sec.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and against A25 for the offence 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 IPC; Sec.15 of Unlawful 9 SC 45-2014
Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of
Damage to the Public Property Act; Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P.
Land Grabbing Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in narrow encompass is that, on 15.9.2013 at 0430 hours, the complainant, eyewitness and injured Mohammed Maqbool (PW.1) came to PS
Dharpally and lodged a complaint stating that, since one year he has been working as Beat Officer at Gouraram village and the said beat comes under the jurisdiction of
Indalwai Range. The deceased R. Gangaiah was working as
In-charge Forest Range Officer of Indalwai Range.
Previously Odde Bhaskar, Odde Ramulu and others of
Nallavelly village had obstructed the duties of Forest officials when they prevented them from cultivating the forest lands with tractors. In this regard, a case has been booked against them. Recently about 30 members under the leadership of said Odde Bhaskar conducted
Dharna in front of Forest Range Office, Indalwai and threatened the forest officials. Last night i.e. on 14.9.2013 at about 10 pm Moin, driver of FRO, Indalwai, made a phone call to him and informed that, FRO was calling him as they were going outside for duties. Upon which, he went to FRO Office, Indalwai, where he found V.
Bhumaiah, FBO, Ansanpally, Shabbir, FBO, Dubbak,
Yadagiri, FBO, Thriambakpet, CH. Mohan, FBO, Ravutla and the FBOs Joseph, Surendar, Raju and Srinu who were working on contract basis, were present.
Forest Range Officer Gangaiah called all the FBOs together and informed that, he had information that, some persons male and female under the leadership of Odde 10 SC 45-2014
Bhaskar were having criminal intention to grab forest land and cultivate the lands with tractors near Pedda
Banda in Gouraram Reserve Forest in the outskirts of
Nallagvelly village. On that, the FRO instructed them to come with him to apprehend the encroachers to protect the forest lands. Yesterday i.e. on 14.9.2013 at about 11.45 pm he (deceased) along with the above persons went in
FRO’s Jeep No.AP-25AD-3025 to Gouraram Reserve Forest and at about 12.45 am, they reached the compartment No.426 situated at Gouraram Reserve Forest and where they noticed Nallavelly villagers i.e. A1 to A27 and others having mollified intention to encroach Govt. Forest land and cultivating the land with Tractors. On seeing forest officials in a jeep, the above persons passed signals to one another by way of vigil and Odde Bhaskar (A1) and
Odde Ramulu (A2) shouted to attack the forest officials by saying so, pelted stones on their jeep, resulting which, front side wind screen glass of their jeep has been broken. Women folk sprinkled chilly powder on FRO
Gangaiah (deceased). Some of the male persons beat FRO with sticks. A1 who armed with axe dragged out FRO
Gangaiah from his jeep and axed on his head, resulting which, Gangaiah died on the spot. Then the above persons caught hold of him and his colleagues by focusing Tractor headlights on them and beat them with hands, sticks and thrown them on the ground and kicked with legs. They escaped from the clutches of above persons and reached to road through railway track. A1 and A2 having criminal intention to encroach Govt. Forest Land, cultivated the lands with tractors and when they presented them from 11 SC 45-2014 encroachments, the above persons with criminal conspiracy attacked on them by sprinkling chilly powder and attacked on them with sticks and axes. Hence, sought necessary actions against the culprits.
2.1 On the above complaint, Gnanandam, ASI, (since died) (LW.38), registered a case in Cr.No.136/2013 u/s 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 IPC;
Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act; Sec.
4 and 5 of A.P. Land Grabbing Act and Sec.3(2)(v) of
SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and against A25 for the offence 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 IPC;
Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act; Sec.
3 and 4 of A.P. Land Grabbing Act, and issued FIR.
Since it is a case of murder of public servant belonging to SC community, SP, Nizamabad, issued proceedings vide C.No.C1/Statl/SC-ST/September/2013 dt.15.9.2013 and appointed S. Anil Kumar, Sub-Divisional
Police Officer, Nizamabad (PW.25) and visited the scene of offence situated at Gouraram Reserve Forest and caused enquiries into the murder of In-charge FRO, Indalwai
Gangaiah and examined and recorded the statements of
PW.1, Syed Moinuddin (PW.2), Chatapuram Mohan (PW.3),
Smt. Roadda Hemalatha (PW.4) and Rodda Gangaram (PW.5), secured the presence of Talari Sailu (PW.10) and Pitla
Poshetty (LW.16) and collected the blood samples of the deceased, earth control, seized chappal of the deceased, chilly powder, stick having bloodstain under cover of panchanama before the mediators and drew rough sketch and 12 SC 45-2014 photographed the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased with the help of Photographer S. Vaikuntam (PW.9) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination. Dr. Balraj, CAS (PW.16) conducted postmortem examination on the deadbody and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to “Polytrauma and head injury due to intracranial hemorrhage.”
On 21.09.2013 at 1000 hours, P. Srishylam, CIP (PW.24) apprehended A1 to A4, A6, A15, A19, and A25 to
A28 at Sirnapally Railway station and informed PW.25, as such, PW.25 rushed to Sirnapally Railway Station and interrogated them before Palthiya Balram (PW.11) and
Talari Narsaiah (LW.18). During interrogation, they confessed to have confessed this offence along with other accused persons and at the instance of A1, A2, and A4 seized sticks and at the instance of A15 seized one sickle under cover of seizure panchanamas. On 23.9.2013 at 1230 hours, Ravi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally, (PW.23) and his team apprehended the accused No.5, 7 to 14, 16, 17, 20, 22 to 24, 29 to 34 and 37 at Lingapoor “X” roads and informed to PW.25 and he rushed to
Lingapoor “X” roads and interrogated them before Abdul
Masjid (LW.19) and Bangu Balaiah (PW.12) and in their presence the accused confessed to have committed this offence along with other accused and after completion of investigation, PW.25 filed charge-sheet against the accused.
3. The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nizamabad taken the case on file as PRC No. 42 of 13 SC 45-2014 2014 in crime No.136 of 2013 of PS Dharpally. The learned
Magistrate after following the due procedure contemplated
under section 209 committed the case to Court of Session,
Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad. The Sessions Court has taken the case on file so committed to it and numbered as
SC No.45/2014 and made over to this Court for trial.
4. After hearing the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused and on consideration of the record, charges under sections 148, 302 and 332 IPC r/w Sec.149 IPC and Sec.15 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3 of
Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, and
Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC were framed against A1 to A37.
U/s 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A3 was framed.
Sec.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act was framed against
A1 to A24, A26 to A31, and A34 to A37.
The above said charges were, read-over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed for being tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw25 and marked Ex.P1 to P92 and MOs No.1 to 28.
6. Pw1 Mohammed Maqbool is the complainant, eyewitness and injured. Pw2 Syed Moinuddin, PW.3 Chatapuram Mohan are the eyewitnesses and injured. PW.4 Smt. Rodda
Hemalatha is the wife of the accused. PW.5 Rodda
Gangaram is brother of the deceased. PW.6 Kamashetty 14 SC 45-2014
Yadagiri and PW.7 Syed Shabbir Ahmed are the eyewitnesses. PW.8 Vorakunta Bhumaiah is the eyewitness and injured. PW.9 Shaiba Vaikuntam is the photographer.
PW.10 Thalari Sailu is panch for scene of offence, inquest and seizure of deceased clothes and confession and recovery of A20, A22, A35 and A36. PW.11 Palthiya
Balram is the panch for confession and recovery of A1,
A2, A4, A15, A20, A22, and A35. PW.12 Bangu Balaiah is panch for confession and recovery of A5. PW.13 Bathula
Praveen Kumar is panch for confession and recovery of A7 & and A8. PW.14 Machukuri Sayanna is panch for confession and recovery of A9 and A12. PW.15 Komma Ashok is confession and recovery of A16. PW.16 Dr. Balraj, CAS, conducted postmortem examination and treated the injured.
PW.17 K. Veena is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificates of accused. PW.18 Y. Sudershan, Tahsildar, issued caste certificate of PW.1. PW.19 S. Rajeshwar,
Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate of deceased
Gangaiah. PW.20 Dr. P. Shirish Kumar, CAS, treated the injured. PW.21 A. Damodar, Sub-Inspector of Police, is the IO. PW.22 J. Naresh, Sub-Inspector of Police, is the
IO. PW.23 Ravi, Sub-Inspector of Police, is the IO. PW.24
P. Srishylam, CIP, is the IO and PW.25 S. Anil Kumar,
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad, is the IO.
Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is set of photographs (14 in number). Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchanama.
Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. Ex.P5 is Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P6 is seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased.
Ex.P7 is relevant portion of confession panchanama of
A20. Ex.P8 is recovery panchanama of A20. Ex.P9 is 15 SC 45-2014 relevant portion of confession panchanama of A22. Ex.P10 is recovery panchanama of A22. Ex.P11 is relevant portion of confession panchanama of A35. Ex.P12 is recovery panchanama of A35. Ex.P13 is relevant portion of confession panchanama of A36. Ex.P14 is recovery panchanama of A36. Ex.P15 is seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased. Ex.P16 to P19 are confessional panchanamas of A1, A2, A4, A15. Ex.P20 to P23 are recovery panchanamas of A1, A2, A4, A15. Ex.P24 is confession panchanama of A20. Ex.P25 is confession panchanama of A22. Ex.P26 and P27 are recovery panchanamas of A20 and A22. Ex.P28 is confession panchanama of A25. Ex.P29 is recovery panchanama of A35.
Ex.P30 is RC of MO.11/Tractor bearing No.AP-25AG-3724.
Ex.P31 is relevant portion of confession panchanama of
A5. Ex.P32 is recovery panchanama of A5. Ex.P33 and P34 are relevant portion of confession panchanamas of A7 and
A8 respectively. Ex.P35 and P36 are recovery panchanamas of A7 and A8. Ex.P37 and P38 are relevant portion of confession panchanamas of A9 and A12 respectively.
Ex.P39 and P40 are relevant portion of confession panchanamas of A12 and A16 respectively. Ex.P41 is relevant portion of confession panchanama of A16. Ex.P42 is recovery panchanama of A16. Ex.P43 is postmortem examination report. Ex.P44 to P74 are caste certificates
A1 to A15 and A19 to A34. Ex.P75 caste certificate of
A37. Ex.P76 is caste certificate of PW.1. Ex.P77 caste certificate of deceased. Ex.P78 to P84 are injury certificates of PW.20, LWs 1 to 3, 8 to 10 and 12.
Ex.P85 is FIR. Ex.P86 is SP proceedings. Ex.P87 to P91 16 SC 45-2014 caste certificates of A16 to A18, A35 and A36. Ex.P92
FSL report.
MO.1 is dragon light. MO.2 is Axe. MO.3 is sickle.
MO.4 is control earth. MO.5 bloodstained earth. MO.6 is
Chilli powder. M.O.7 is pair of cheppals. MO.8 is stick. MO.9 is bloodstained stick. MO.10 is Chilli
Power. MO.11 is Tractor No.3724. MO.12 is Tractor
No.7763. MO.13 is White and green colour T-shirt. MO.14 is black pant. MO.15 is Banyan. MO.16 is underwear.
MO.17 is Long length stick. MO.18 small stick. MO.19 one medium stick. MO.20 chilli powder box. MOs.21 to 25 are sticks. MO.26 is Tractor No.5749. MO.27 is Tractor
No.8108. M.O.28 is Guage cloth.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that they have no defence evidence.
8. Heard the learned Addl. PP and learned advocate for the accused.
9. Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether A1 to A25 and A26 to A37 formed into unlawful assembly, attacked the deceased Gangaiah in prosecution of their common object knowing fully well of consequences of attack and killed him by causing culpable homicide?
2. Whether the prosecution established that A1 to A3 attempted to commit murder of PWs 1 and 2 with the assistance of A4 to A37 with common object to prosecute the offence?
3. Whether the prosecution established that A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 committed the offence punishable u/s 148 IPC?
17 SC 45-2014
4. Whether the prosecution established that PWs 1, 2 and 5 to 8 Forest Beat Officers in discharge of their official duties being attacked and obstructed their legitimate duties by the accused?
5. Whether the prosecution established A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 threatened the Forest officers about their unity, integrity, security and sovereignty and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC
6. Whether the prosecution established A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 formed into unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object, caused damage to the public property i.e. Jeep bearing No.AP-25- AD-3025 of Forest Department?
7. Whether the prosecution established that A1 to 25 and A27 to A37 came on tractors in order to grab the forest land in prosecution of common object and they are liable for punishment u/s 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act?
8. Whether the prosecution established A1 to A24 and A27 to A37 not being the members of SC/ST and attacked against R. Gangaiah who belongs to SC and killed him and they are liable u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act?
9. To what relief?
10. The story of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is that, A1 to A34 are natives of Nallavelli village of Dharpally Mandal and belong to non-SC/ST community and A25 is native of Nallavelli village and belongs to Lambada caste. A1 is active worker and leader in CPM party at Nallavelli village. According to their party ideology for the last three years, the villagers of
Nallavelli under the leadership of A1 are trying to own forest lands for cultivation as they are not having agricultural lands. In this connection, A1, A2 and other accused tried to encroach forest lands existing before
Sirnapally railway station. But, they have not succeeded in their attempts and Forest Department filed criminal 18 SC 45-2014 cases against accused persons. 15 days prior to the incident, A18, District Secretary of CPM party, conducted meeting with them and provoked them to encroach the forest lands for their cultivation. Further, instigated to attack on the persons who cause obstruction in their encroachment activities and gave assurance that CPM party is behind them to face consequences. A1, A2 and others performed Dharna at Forest Range Office, Indalwai under the leadership of A18. Their request was not accepted by the Forest Department people. They bore grudge as they failed to succeed in grabbing the forest land, they plotted and decided to plough the forest land with tractors. Accordingly, they engaged 4 tractors; two of them from Karimnagar, one is from Mamida village of
Nirmal Mandal and one is from Gadkile village. On the night of 14.9.2013, A1 to A15 and A18 to A37 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like stick, axe and sickle and held meeting where they decided to do away the lives of the persons who obstruct their activities of encroaching the forest lands. By conspiring so, A1 to A37 went to the scene of offence with four tractors at Pedda Banda which is situated in Sy.No.309 and compartment No.426 in the outskirts of Nallavelli village. At about 11.45 pm while the accused persons were ploughing the forest lands with four tractors, the deceased along with LWs 1 to 3 and LWs 6 to 12 went in Government jeep bearing No.AP-25AD-3025 to protect the forest lands. On seeing the persons in jeep, the accused persons identified them as forest officials and one among them i.e. A2 pelted stones on the 19 SC 45-2014 jeep to create panic atmosphere. Due to which, the windscreen of the jeep got damaged, then A2, A24 and A34 sprinkled the Chilli powder on the jeep and FRO. Again
A2 beat the deceased with sticks and thigh, as a result, jeep driver tried to drive his jeep forward to escape from them. But, the said jeep skidded in the mud. By taking this advantage, A1 who was holding axe, dragged out the FRO from the jeep and axed on his face and head, due to which, FRO fell on the ground. Then, A2 beat the deceased with stick on his head and A15 who was holding sickle, beat on the deceased’s head, due to which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The remaining accused persons A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A14, A20, A22, A25, A28, A29, A30, A34 beat other forest officials with hands and sticks. Women folk i.e. A21,
A24 and A34 kicked them with their legs. Then, A1 along with his brother A2 took the dragon lights from the scene of offence and all the accused A1 to A3 and others retreated along with their engaged tractors. Hence, the case.
POINT No.1: Whether A1 to A25 and A26 to A37 formed into unlawful assembly, attacked the deceased Gangaiah in prosecution of their common object knowing fully well of consequences of attack and killed him by causing culpable homicide?
11. In this story, four steps are there. First part of prosecution story is that, the accused persons belong to
Nallavelli village area and they are agitation for the last three years for encroaching forest lands but that plan was not succeeded. Second part of the prosecution 20 SC 45-2014 story is, then A18 came into the scene and held a meeting with all the accused wherein he instigated all the accused to attack the persons who obstruct their activity. Here, one thing is apparent that these people are CPM leaders and they hatched a plan to make their activity successful in encroaching the forest land. In pursuance of their plan, they pressed into service 4 tractors to plough the forest land and take into possession illegally without any authoritative proceedings from the Government. Third important aspect is, plan of accused being executed, on 14.9.2013 all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sticks, sickle and an axe and held a meeting where they decided to do away the lives of the persons who obstruct their activities of encroaching the forest land. The fourth part is, at about 11.45 pm the deceased received information about the encroachment of forest land with four tractors, then PWs 1, 2, and 5 to 8 and some other witnesses went in Govt. Jeep bearing
No.AP-25-AD-3025 to protect the forest land; on seeing them, the accused persons pelted stones, more particularly, A2 against jeep created panic atmosphere,
A21, A24, A34 sprinkled Chilli powder against the jeep and against the deceased. Again A2 beat with his thing,
A1 who was holding axe, as jeep was stuck in the mud, he bounced upon the deceased and dragged him out and axed him on his head; A2 again beat him. A15 beat with sickle on his head, and other accused No.5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 34 beat the officials with hands and sticks; women folk A21, A24 and A34 kicked them.
21 SC 45-2014
These are four parts in the story of the prosecution.
So, basing on this, we have to analyze whether the prosecution established their story beyond all reasonable doubt.
11.1 Pw1 Mohd. Maqbool, Forest Beat Officer,
Gandhari Range, deposed that previous he worked as Forest
Beat Officer at Indalwai Range from 2012 to 2013. The deceased Gangaiah was their Range Officer and during 2012 and 2013 all the accused were cultivating the forest land, so at the instructions of his superior officers, he got registered FIR against the accused. 4 to 5 days prior to the alleged incident, all the accused came to their
Range office and shouted saying that they are free to cultivate the forest lands and that they would kill anyone who obstructs them. This is the main basis for motive for the accused to attack the forest officials who obstructed them in encroaching or cultivating the lands.
11.2 The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not filed any piece of paper to show that accused encroached forest lands.
Here, the offence charged against the accused persons is, grabbing of forest land and brought into cultivation by bringing tractors. This is evident from the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 5 to 8. PW.1 specifically states that as part of his duty, he need to supervise the area under Gouraram village, Nallavelli village, Kona thanda, Pati thanda and another thanda falling under
Indalwai Forest Range. Here, there is no need of filing of documentary evidence in order to say that the disputed 22 SC 45-2014 land pertains to Forest Department. So, the prosecution placed the oral evidence of PW.1 being a Forest Beat
Officer. Moreover, he is section officer of the said department of the Unit Forest Range Office at Indalwai.
So, his evidence is the best evidence to know which land falls under Indalwai Range. Moreover, in the cross- examination nothing was suggested to PW.1 or other witnesses to the occurrence that the incident was taken place not at the forest land and it pertains to
Raghunathpally revenue village area. Moreover, it was elicited from the evidence of PW.1 that accused along with other villagers went on Dharna demanding that 1000 acres of Raghunathpally should be distributed among them.
So, it is for the accused to bring that Raghunathpally village falls under revenue village and lands found in it are revenue lands which pertain to the Government. But, this fact though admitted by PW.1, not having any hold on the contention of the accused that prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence to show that the offence was taken place in forest land and not in the revenue land. Moreover, as seen from the evidence of PW.25, he deposed that on 15.9.2013 he received SP proceedings,
Ex.P86 and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, verified the investigation done by PW.24 and found to be on proper lines. As seen from the evidence of PW.24, on 15.9.2013 at the instructions of Dy.
Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of PW.10 and LW.16/P. Poshetty and seized chilli powder (MO.6), one pair of chapel (MO.7), one stick 23 SC 45-2014 (MO.8), one blood stained gauge cloth (MO.28) at the scene of offence and conducted inquest panchanama. The place of offence is described in Ex.P3 document is, outskirts of Nallavelli village in Sy.No.309 of Gouraram
Reservoir Forest, compartment No.426, place is at Pedda
Banda. Even this fact is also found in Ex.P1 complaint.
So, this fact was supported by PW.1 and also established through PWs 24 and 25 who are Investigating Officers rushed to the scene immediately after the incident on 15.9.2013 i.e. on the next day. So, the prosecution place the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 8 and PWs 24 and 25 and Ex.P1, P3 and P4 documents and it is clearly established with the oral and documentary evidence that the scene of offence is located in compartment No.426 at
Pedda Banda. So, on this aspect, the contention of the accused persons that there is no evidence on record to show that incident was taken place at forest land is watered down.
11.3 Another argument being projected by the defence counsel is that the investigation alleged to have been made by the DSP alone as per Sec.7 of SC/ST (PoA) Act because some protection was carved out in the said
Enactment to protect the interest of SC/ST people in order to safeguard the investigation in the cadre of
Senior Police Officer without making flimsy investigations and making proper investigation may lead to specific accusations against the culprits. But, unfortunately the DSP has not visited the scene and PW.24 went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama. So, that is against the mandatory 24 SC 45-2014 provision of SC/ST Act. It is true, from the beginning it is described that accused persons belong to non-ST and victim belongs to SC community. So, the normal course investigation must be under the guidance of DSP alone.
Here, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the offence was taken place rioting plus alleged killing of Forest Range Officer. Moreover, the accused allegedly participated in the said incident is 37 members. So, the entire process of conducting scene of offence, collecting material from the scene and identifying the accused persons and collecting the information in respect of accused persons etc., may not be possible with one single officer. Moreover, PW.24 and other officials who conducted alleged process of scene, inquest and alleged recoveries made from the accused persons are all officers under the control of DSP. Moreover, PW.24 stated in his evidence that on the instructions of PW.25 he visited the scene of offence and collected evidence available at the scene and made it available to the DSP. Even the evidence of PW.25 shows that he has verified the investigation done by PW.24 and found it on proper lines and he also says that on his instructions, PW.24 conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected material particulars of the scene. So, in the set of circumstances, there is no irregularity or deviation of
Sec.7 of SC/ST Act. On this point, the argument of learned counsel for accused does not stand for scrutiny.
11.4 Now coming to the point of direct evidence in respect of incident is concerned. As seen from Ex.P1 25 SC 45-2014 document, the accused persons were making agitations for the last three years and they caused law and order problem frequently and they are encroaching the forest lands and brought into cultivation and making a force against the officers to allot those lands to landless poor or persons in the group of accused and nearby villages of Nallavelli. So, in that circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 says that 4 cases were registered against accused by the police and five cases were registered against the accused by their department. 4 or 5 days prior to the alleged incident, all the accused came to their Range Office and shouted that are free to cultivate the forest lands and that they would kill anyone who obstructs them. On 14.9.2013, he received a phone call from Mohin, the driver of Range Officer informing that he was called by the Officer urgently, rushed to the office at 10.30 pm. They all proceeded to
Pedda Banda where the incident was taken place. This fact was also deposed by PWs 2, 3, and 6 to 8. There is no discrepancy among these witnesses in respect of above fact is concerned, and defence counsel has not brought any material to disprove the above said fact. But, he contended that the prosecution has not placed any evidence in respect of Sec.120(B) IPC conspiracy which is alleged to have been made in the charge sheet.
Therefore, the story which projected by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is not established the said alleged fact.
I am not accepting the said argument of the learned counsel for the accused since he has not cross-examined 26 SC 45-2014
PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 on the above said aspect.
Moreover, PW.1 specified that during 2012 and 2013 all the accused were cultivating the forest lands, so he registered FIR against accused. 4 or 5 days prior to the alleged incident, all the accused came to their Range
Office and shouted that are free to cultivate the forest lands and that they would kill anyone who obstructs them and this fact is also supported by other witnesses.
Here, the conspiracy could be drawn inference from the behaviour of the accused persons and from the evidence which was spoken by PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8. So, this fact shows that FRO deceased Gangaiah received information that accused persons conspired together to encroach into forest land and they were trying to bring it into cultivation through Tractors. So, this fact itself establishes the alleged conspiracy. However, the Court has not framed the charge u/s 120-B IPC.
11.5 Further, PW.1 stated that on the information of
Mohin, he urgently went to the office on 14.9.2013 at about 10.30 pm, there were 9 members including him. Their officer, Gangaiah asked them to join him on a raid at 10.30 pm, all of them went along with him in the jeep and 3 other officers came on motorcycle and they proceeded to the forest and at Pedda Banda there was huge tree trunk was laid across the road, as such, they stopped the jeep.
Immediately the accused came there and started sprinkling chillie powder on them and started beating them. Odde
Ramulu(A2) beat Gangaiah with a stick on the right thigh and Bhaskar (A1) beat with an Axe on the right side of the head of Gangaiah. He further deposed that some of 27 SC 45-2014 them were hitting the vehicle and broken the glass of the jeep and one persons snatched away the battery from his hand and some of them hit him. Pedda Sailu(A4) beat him with a stick on his right side of the Chest and on the right leg on the knee area. He further deposed that their officer Gangaiah died on the spot due to the beatings of the accused. All of them scared of death, rushed for lives. He gave a complaint/Ex.P1 in the police station on the same day.
Though PW.1 was cross-examined by the defence counsel but no material is elicited in order to bring the contradictions in respect of overt acts against A1, A2 and A4 respectively. He denied the suggestion that there was tree trunk across the road and their jeep hit against that and all of them fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries; thereby the deceased died. The said suggestion is absurd one as when PW.1 who is a direct witness/injured and one of the Beat Officers, participated in the raid, stated directly that A1, A2 and
A4 and other accused persons altogether named as 27 members in Ex.P1 and 37 members named in the charge sheet were participated in the alleged offence in prosecution of their common object. So, on this aspect some discrepancy cropped in the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PWs 6 to 8. PW.1 has not stated in respect of overt acts against A15 that he attacked the deceased with a sickle, but PW.2 stated that A15 beat Gangaiah with a sickle (MO.3) on his forehead. PW.6 stated that A15 attacked the deceased with a sickle on the forehead. PW.7 stated that A15 attacked Gangaiah with a sickle on his forehead.
28 SC 45-2014
PW.8 also stated that A15 attacked the deceased on his forehead with a sickle. So, considering the above said evidence only PW.1’s evidence is not found that A15 attacked the deceased on his forehead with a sickle, and that is only minor discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case. So, rest of the evidence of PW.1 is consistent and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 6 to 8. So, on the aspect of attempt made by the accused and specific overt acts by the accused No.1, 2, 4 and 15 and other accused participated in the offence, attacked with sticks and beat with hands and kicked with legs.
11.6 The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution witnesses have not given overt acts of each accused and not given identity of accused persons, therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and official witnesses and no independent witness is examined.
In order to appreciate the above said argument,
I came across the judgment reported in the case of
Gangadhar Behera and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa. His
Lordship while dealing with interested witness “we shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for further prosecution version.
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such case, the Court has 29 SC 45-2014 to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.”
It was observed in Dalip Singh and Ors. Vs. The
State of PunjabAIR 1953 SC 364. “A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts.”
In the above observations, we have to analyse the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8. All are Forest Beat
Officers who have only relationship with the deceased as
Officer and subordinates, no blood relation. All are executing official duties and they have no grudge against the accused persons to implicate them falsely. Moreover, the defence counsel has made any foundation in the cross- examination to bring or to suspect the credibility of witnesses alleging specific enmity or specific allegation in order to implicate all the accused falsely in the alleged incident. In the absence of these suggestions, 30 SC 45-2014 the defence counsel has no say that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and the accused were falsely implicated. Therefore, the contention of the defence counsel is not accepted. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is consistent, corroborative and withstood the cross-examination made by the defence counsel and no material contradictions or material omissions have been brought in the evidence of above witnesses. So, I hold that the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object, attacked the officials to do away their lives.
11.7 The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution witnesses have not given specific identify of accused persons; therefore the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is only omnibus statements and there is no specific identity of each accused.
Therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
The evidence of PW.1’s shows that he knows all the accused and lodged Ex.P1/complaint wherein he has given the names of 27 members and others. The names of 10 other members were collected by the Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation. So, he referred all the accused came to the scene of offence in 4 Tractors in order to prosecute their common object. On this aspect, no cross-examination was done by the defence counsel and no contradictions were brought in order to suspect the identity made by PW.1. Further, the other 31 SC 45-2014 witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 6 to 8 also stated that they know all the accused. So, when a mass attack is being made, the identity of each accused may not be possible. Here,
His Lordship observed in the above said citation while dealing the point of Sec.149 IPC “then it is urged that evidence given by the witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern and since no specific part is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been accepted. This criticism again is not well founded.
Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assault the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that guns were used and that was enough to kill five persons.”
In our case, 37 members participated in the offence.
Here, from the beginning in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 it is very much clear that accused persons agitating and conducting dharnas in front of Forest Range
Office, Indalwai demanding distribution of forest land.
So, distribution of forest land is not in the hands of
Forest Officer and it is in the hands of Government and any representation making to the Government through the
District Collector and their request and demands may be 32 SC 45-2014 successfully projected before the Government and not
before the Forest Officers. Moreover, all the accused
except some persons are ST people and others are non-ST.
Any citizen does not have right to cultivate the forest land as per the laws prevailed in that area. So, the accused persons have taken law into their hands in order to prosecution their common object. According to the evidence of PW.1, just five days before the incident, they made Dharna before the Forest Range Office and threatened the officials if anybody obstructs them, they would kill. So, this fact forms a common object and shared by all the accused, as such, all the accused engaged 4 tractors and came to the Forest land in the midnight at Nallavelli forest area in compartment No.426, as stated by PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 and also it is pin pointed through scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3.
Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the accused that PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 did not attribute overt acts against each accused and part played by each accused in the said offence is not accepted.
12. The accused were charged u/s 149 IPC. In Lalji
Vs. State of UJ.P. 1989(1) SCC 437), it was observed that “Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. In State of U.P.
Vs. Dan Singh and others (1997(3) SCC 747) it was observed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to 33 SC 45-2014 prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. Reference was made to Lalji’s case (supra) where it was observed that “while overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under section 149.”
So, in the set of circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the accused that each witness has not given the overt act of each accused who were charged by the prosecution cannot be sustained. I have discussed the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 and they have clearly given how the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the officials who only 9 in number, whereas the accused persons are 37 in number.
Moreover, the behaviour of the accused persons found from the evidence of above witnesses that they came on 4 tractors at midnight to compartment No.426. Moreover, all are residents of Nallavelli village and there was no need to come to forest land and exhibit the common object to attack the officials, and when the officials obstructed their illegal activities, the accused attacked them. So, the behaviour and kind of attack which was made against the deceased and PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 clearly establishes the ingredients found in Sec.141 and 149 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution with the above evidence, established the offence u/s 149 IPC.
13. Now, coming to the point of attack against the deceased. Here, A1 beat the deceased with an axe on his right side of the head. A2 beat with sticks on his thigh 34 SC 45-2014 and A15 attacked with a sickle. As seen from the evidence of PW.16, Dr. Balraj, who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of R. Gangaiah, deposed that on 15-9-2013 on receipt of requisition from police, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of R. Gangaiah and found injuries as noted in column No.11 of postmortem examination;
1) ® ear laceration 5x2 cm by sharp weapon with ® ear bleeding
2) ® side of frontal bone (on skull) 5x2 cm laceration with fracture
3) Deep puncture wound 3x3x3 cm over (L) forehead region.
4) Bluish black discoloured over ® side of lower abdomen.
5) ® hand swelling with metacarpal bone 2, 3 fracture, ® little finger fracture.
6) Hematoma over scalp
7) Hemorrhage – Intracranial present
8) (L) thigh region – hematoma +
9) Stomach – rice linor lungs No intraperitoneal collections.
and the cause of death was found to be poly trauma with head injury due to intra cranial hemorrhage.
The learned counsel for the accused contended that the injuries in col.No.11 and overt acts attributed by the witnesses to each accused are not matching and that there is no injury on the middle of the skull leading to death, as such, the evidence of PW.16 is not substantiated with the injuries found in Ex.P43. The evidence of PW.16 is not clear about the injuries, therefore, the cause of death itself is very much doubtful.
35 SC 45-2014
In the cross-examination PW.16 admitted that as per
Ex.P3, there is no injury on the central part of the forehead. The second injury mentioned in Col.No.11 can be caused by a single blow or repeated blows. It is possible that the weapons used for causing such injuries would be stained with blood. The deceased might have received three blows on his skull. So, considering these factual aspects, the version spoken by the direct witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who specifically stated that A1 attacked with an axe against R. Gangaiah on his right side of head. The injury No.2 is ® side of frontal bone (on skull) 5x2 cm laceration with fracture.
Further, PW.2 stated in his evidence that A15 beat
Gangaiah with a sickle (MO.3) on his forehead. Injury
No.3 is deep puncture wound 3x3x3 cm over (L) forehead region. Further, PW.16 also says that such types of injuries are possible with sharp weapon and same is mentioned in Col.11 and MOs 2 and 3 may cause such type of injuries. These injuries are received by the deceased with sharp weapon. Further, as seen from the evidence of PW.3, A2 beat with stick on the thigh of the deceased. The injury No.8 is (L) thigh region – hematoma + is present. So, this injury establishes that A2 attacked the deceased with a stick. So, the overt acts attributed to A1, A2 and A15 are corroborated with the medical evidence and PW.16 also says that these injuries are sufficient to cause death of a person. Further, the cause of death is mentioned as poly trauma with head injury due to intra cranial hemorrhage. Here, nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.16 to bring 36 SC 45-2014 contradictions in between oral evidence and medical evidence. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 and
PW.16 is corroborative and consistent with the injuries spoken by the witnesses.
Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act is made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery was being made from A4, A15, A19.
Further, recovery was being made from A5, A7, A8, A9,
A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused.
So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the Court found that these persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they made an attack and killed the deceased Gangaiah. Hence, the prosecution has established that accused persons i.e.
A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35
and A36 in prosecution of their common object attacked the deceased R. Gangaiah and caused injuries in order to do away his life and caused homicidal death and they are liable for punishment u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC. The rest of accused are not included in this offence since there is no confession and recovery from them. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in favour of prosecution and partly information favour of the accused.
14. Point No.ii: Whether the prosecution established that A1 to A3 attempted to commit 37 SC 45-2014 murder of PWs 1 and 2 with the assistance of A4 to A37 with common object to prosecute the offence?
14.1 As seen from the evidence of PW.1 all the accused attacked the. Some of them were hitting the vehicle and broken the glass of jeep and one person snatched away battery from his hand and Pedda Sailu (A4) beat him with a stick on his right side of the Chest and on the right leg on the knee area. PW.2 stated in his evidence that he sustained injuries on the back and on his right leg at the calf area. PW.6 stated that he also sustained injuries on his thigh and legs. PW.7 stated that A7 and A14 beat him with sticks on his hands and legs and sustained injuries. PW.8 stated that he sustained injury blow on the right shoulder, on the back and on the forehead and he ran for life out of fear.
PW.20, Medical Officer, who examined PWs 1 to 3, LW.9,
PW.8, LW.15 stated that PW.1 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P78 and PW.2 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P79. PW.3 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P80. LW.8 sustained injuries as mentioned in
Ex.P81. LW.9 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P82.
PW.8 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P83. LW.12 received injuries as mentioned in Ex.P84 and he issued
Ex.P78 to P84 respectively. So, the oral evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 and evidence of PW.20 and Ex.P78 to
P84 shows that prosecution witnesses received injuries in the alleged attack made by the accused persons. Here, the charge made against accused persons is u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC. The allegation is made in Ex.P1 document that attack is on the instigation of A1, A2 and evidence of 38 SC 45-2014
PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 shows that on seeing their jeep, the accused persons went back thinking that they are police officials and on seeing them in the light of
Tractor and Jeep, they thought that they are not police officials and they are forest officers, all surrounded and made attack on them and dealt blows against the Range
Officer R. Gangaiah and other prosecution witnesses. So,
PW.1 received injuries on his chest, which is vital part of the body; that itself shows that accused attacked him in order to eliminate him. In view of confessions and recoveries as stated in point No.1, the prosecution has established that accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7,
A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 in prosecution of their common object attacked the prosecution witness and they are liable for punishment u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC. The rest of accused are not included in this offence since there is no confession and recovery from them. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered partly in favour of prosecution and partly information favour of the accused.
15. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of material objects. Moreover, the entire process of recovery of material objects appears to be very artificial and not believable. Therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
Here, as seen from the evidence of PW.25 on 21.9.2013, on his instructions, PW.24 apprehended A1 to
A4, A6, A15, A19, A25 to A28 at Sirnapally Railway
Station and informed him, as such, he immediately went 39 SC 45-2014 there and secured the presence of mediators PW.11, and
LW.18 T. Narsaiah, and A1, A2, A4 and A15 confessed to have committed the offence and following their confessions, he recovered MO.1 and MO.2 from A1, another dragon light (MO.1) and a stick (MO.17) from A2.
The learned counsel for the accused contended that it is very artificial to believe that MO.2 was recovered at the instance of A1. As seen from the evidence of PW.11, on 21.9.2013, he along with T.
Narsaiah (LW.18) was called by DSP to Sirnapally Railway
Station and at his instructions, he enquired A1, A2, A4 and A15, on which, they confessed to have committed the offence and thereafter they led them to their respective houses and A1 produced dragon light (MO.1), Axe (MO.2), and A2 produced MO.1 another dragon light and one long stick (MO.17) and A15 produced one sickle (MO.13), and A4 produced one stick (MO.18). The relevant portions are
Ex.P16 to P19. So, the exhibited part of Ex.P16 to P19 discloses that A1, A2, A4 and A15 respectively gave information about the MOs 1 to 3 and MO.18 and at their instance, the said MOs were recovered. Here, PW.11 is
VRO, independent panch witness. So his evidence cannot be suspected in respect of confession made by the accused.
Further, PW.25 deposed that on 23.9.2013, at his instructions, PW.24 and his team apprehended A5, A7 to A14, A16, A17, A20, A22 to A24, A29 to A34 and A37 at
Lingapoor cross road and informed him. He immediately went there and secured the presence of PW.12 and LW.19
Abdul Mazeed and recorded confession of A5 and recovered 40 SC 45-2014 one stick (MO.21) at his instance. PW.12 stated that on 23.9.2013 on the instructions of his Tahsildar and
Police, he along with LW19/Abdul Masjid went to Lingapoor cross-roads and at the instance of the police he enquired
A5 and A5 confessed to have committed the offence, and A5 led them along with the police to a Railway bridge near
Kotha Bhavanam and by the side of Railway bridge A5 produced one stick/MO-21 which was seized by the police.
The relevant portion of panchanama is marked as Ex.P31.
PW.25 further deposed that deposed that on his instructions, PW.24 recorded the confession of A7 and A8 in the presence of PW.13 and LW.22/B. Ashok and recovered sticks from A7 and A8. As seen from the evidence of
PW.13, Bathula Praveen Kumar, VRO, deposed that on 23.9.2013, on the instructions of CI of Police, he along with LW.22/B. Ashok went to Lingapoor cross-roads and at the instance of the police he enquired A7 and A8 and they have confessed to have committed the offence, and A7 and
A8 led them to a Railway gate at Nallavelli forest area and shown sticks MO.22 and MO.23 which were hidden by the side of Railway Track near Venkateshwara temple. Police seized the same under Ex.P33, relevant portion of confession panchanama of A7 and P34 is recovery panchanama. Ex.P35 relevant portion of confession panchanama of A8 and P36 is recovery panchanama.
Further PW.25 deposed that on his instructions,
PW.24 recorded the confession of A9 and A12 in the presence of PW.14 and LW.24/R. Prabhakar and recovered sticks(MO.24 and 25) from A9 and A12. PW.14 Machkuri
Sayanna, VRO, on 23-9-2013, deposed that on the 41 SC 45-2014 instructions of Tahsildar and Police, he along with
LW.24/R. Prabhakar went to Lingapoor cross-road and at the instance of the police he enquired A9 and A12 and they have confessed to have committed the offence, and A9 and A12 led them to a Railway crossing at Nallavelli and shown sticks (MOs 24 and 25) used in the commission of offence and the sticks which were hidden by the side of
Railway Track. Police seized the same. Ex.P37 is the relevant portion of confession of A9 panchanama and
Ex.P38 is recovery panchanama. Ex.P39 is relevant portion of confession of A12 panchanama and Ex.P40 is recovery panchanama.
Further PW.25 deposed that on his instructions,
PW.21 recorded the confession of A16 in the presence of
PW.15 and LW.25/D. Srinivas and recovered two tractors (MOs 26 and 27) at the instance of A16. As seen from the evidence of PW.15, Komma Ashok, VRO, deposed that on 23.9.2013, on the instructions of Police, Dharpally, he along with LW.25/D. Srinivas went to Lingapoor cross- roads and at the instance of the police he enquired A16 and he has confessed to have committed the offence, and
A16 led them to Gouraram vaagu and shown two tractors bearing No.5749 and 8108 (MOs 26 and 27) used in the commission of offence and police seized the same. The relevant portion of confession panchanama of A16 is
Ex.P41 and recovery panchanama of MOs 26 and 27 is
Ex.P42.
Further PW.25 deposed that on his instructions,
PW.22 recorded the confession of A20 and A22 in the presence of PW.10 and PW.11 and recovered bloodstained 42 SC 45-2014 stick/MO.9 from A20 and chilli powder/MO.10 from A22. As seen from the evidence of PW.10, on 23.9.2013, he was called by the police Dichpally along with LW.17 to
Lingapuram cross-roads where he noticed A20 and A22 in the custody of police and on enquiry, they confessed to have committed the offence and following his confession, a bloodstained stick (MO.9) hidden beside the building near Railway crossing was seized, and A22 led them to his house at Nallavelli and brought chilli powder (MO.10) which was used in the commission of offence and the police seized the same. The relevant portion of confession panchanama of A20 is Ex.P7 and recovery panchanama of MO.9 is Ex.P8. The relevant portion of confession panchanama of A22 is Ex.P9 and recovery panchanama of MO.9 is Ex.P10.
Further, PW.25 deposed that on 7.10.2013, PW.21 apprehended A35 and recorded the confessional statement in the presence of PW.10 and PW.11 and recovered the tractor/MO.11 at the instance of A35. As seen from the evidence of PW.10, on 7.10.2013, he was called to Gadkole village by the DSP and there A35 was present and on his enquiry, he confessed to have committed the offence and led them to his house and shown a tractor bearing No.AP-
AG-3724 (MO.11) which was seized by the police. Witness identified the tractor in the photograph shown to him.
MO.11 was given to A35 for interim custody. Ex.P11 is the relevant portion of confession panchanama of A35 and recovery panchanama is Ex.P12.
43 SC 45-2014
Further PW.25 deposed that on 28.10.2013, A36 was apprehended by LW.38/Gnanandam and produced before him.
He recorded the confession panchanama of A36 in the presence of PW.10 and LW.16 and recovered MO.12 tractor following his confession. As seen from the evidence of
PW.10, on 28.10.2013, he was called by the police to the house of A36 at Challagarga village and A36 confessed to have committed the offence and shown a tractor bearing
No.AP-15-BV-7763 (MO.12) which was used in the commission of offence. Ex.P13 is the relevant portion of confession panchanama of A36 and recovery panchanama is Ex.P14.
16. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the mediators PWs 10 to 15 are stock witnesses and they are officials/VROs and they obliged the directions of the police and they obtained signatures of these witnesses after panchanamas and they were brought into existence and no panchanama was conducted as stated by the police.
I am not accepting the above said argument.
This is common criticism being made by the defence counsel in respect of panchanamas, confession and recovery of material objects. But, no material is elicited from the evidence of these witnesses nor suspect the process conducted by PWs 21 to 25. Therefore, the alleged recoveries as stated by the witnesses are proved in respect of confession and recoveries. PW.4 is wife of the deceased and PW.5 is brother of the deceased and their evidence show that they received informationi from
PW.1 that R. Gangaiah was being attacked and killed.
Immediately, they rushed to the scene of offence and 44 SC 45-2014 noticed the deadbody. Thereafter police came and conducted all the procedure. The evidence of PW.4 discloses that she made a representation before the higher officers that some landlords and officials who are against her husband, might have colluded with the accused and killed her husband. But, this part of evidence was used by the defence counsel and suggestion was given, but the same was denied. So, nothing material available to suspect that PW.3 involved in attacking the deceased in collusion with the accused. Further, PW.9 Shaiba
Vaikuntam, photographer, deposed that at the instructions of police, he obtained the photographs Ex.P2 (set of photographs) of the vehicles i.e. tractor, jeep and a male deadbody at the scene of offence. PW.10 Thalari
Sailu, VRO, Kesharam village, deposed that on 15.9.2013 he along with Poshetty(LW.16) was called by police
Dichpally and police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and also conducted inquest and seized the clothes of the deceased. He further deposed that there was chilli powder sprinkled on the jeep and the wind screen of the jeep was cracked. He further deposed that police collected samples under Ex.P3, control earth, M.O.4, bloodstained gauge cloth, MO.5,
Chilli powder, M.O.6. One pair of chapels, M.O.7, one bloodstained stick, MO.8. So, considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 25, the prosecution is able to establish the charge u/s 302 and 307 r/w 149 IPC against accused
persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16,
A20, A22, A35 and A36.
45 SC 45-2014
17. Point No. 3: Whether the prosecution established that A1 to A25 and A26 to A37
committed the offence punishable u/s
148 IPC?
17.1 As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 and PWs 21 to 25 stated that at the first instance, the direct evidence of witnesses does not show specific part played by each accused of the following accused i.e.
A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25,
A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 were apprehended without confession and recovery. As seen from the evidence of PWs 21 to 25 Investigating Officers and relevant exhibits and confessions-cum-recover the accused i.e. specific overt act made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery being made from A4, A15, A19.
Further, recovery being made from A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused. So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas.
All the accused; means A1 to A37. Some of them were not identified by PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses since they were attacked suddenly and lights were focusing on some of the accused; meanwhile chilli powder was sprinkled, due to which the prosecution witnesses could not identify some of the accused. But, they have not specified specific attribution against all the accused No.1 to 37. As seen from the evidence of PWs 21 to 25 though all the accused were apprehended but out of these only A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A18, A19, A21, 46 SC 45-2014
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 were apprehended without confession and recovery.
Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery being made from A4, A15, A19. Further, recovery being made from A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused. So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the Court found that accused persons
i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22,
A35 and A36 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and in prosecution of their common object, they made an attack and killed the deceased
Gangaiah. So, accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7,
A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are liable to be punished u/s 148 IPC.
18. Point No.4:
Whether the prosecution established that PWs 1,
2 and 5 to 8 Forest Beat Officers in discharge
of their official duties being attacked and
obstructed their legitimate duties by the
accused?
18.1 The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is that they are Forest Beat Officers and on the instructions of the deceased Gangaiah, Forest Range Officer, they went to scene offence in order to prevent the accused persons for grabbing the forest land and cultivating it and they 47 SC 45-2014 performed their official duties in protecting the forest land. Accused persons knowing fully well that the duties of the forest officers, came to the scene during night hours and made attack against them and detained the public servant in discharging their official duties and made against the deceased Gangaiah as well as against them. Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act is made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery was being made from A4, A15, A19.
Further, recovery was being made from A5, A7, A8, A9,
A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused.
So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the Court found that these persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they obstructed the legitimate duties of Government officials.
Hence, the prosecution has established that accused
persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16,
A20, A22, A35 and A36 are liable to be punished u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution.
19. Point No.5:
Whether the prosecution established A1 to A25 and
A27 to A37 threatened the Forest officers about
their unity, integrity, security and sovereignty
and thereby committed offence punishable under
Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
r/w 149 IPC?
48 SC 45-2014 19.1Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is defined in respect of Terrorist, who causes damage and creates terror in the minds of prosecution witnesses, but the same is found not place and there is no material available to attract this charge. Hence, all the accused are found not guilty under Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused.
20. Point No.6:
Whether the prosecution established A1 to A25 and
A27 to A37 formed into unlawful assembly and in
prosecution of common object, caused damage to
the public property i.e. Jeep bearing No.AP-25-
AD-3025 of Forest Department?
20.1 The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 clearly shows that all the accused attacked their vehicle and caused damage, which is the public property. Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act is made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery was being made from A4, A15, A19.
Further, recovery was being made from A5, A7, A8, A9,
A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused.
So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the Court found that these persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, got damaged the Forest department jee. Hence, the prosecution has established that accused persons i.e. A1, 49 SC 45-2014
A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and
A36 are liable to be punished u/s 3 of PDPP Act r/w 149
IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution.
21. Point No.7:
Whether the prosecution established that A1 to 25
and A27 to A37 came on tractors in order to grab
the forest land in prosecution of common object
21.1 The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not filed any piece of paper to show that accused encroached forest lands.
Here, the offence charged against the accused persons is, grabbing of forest land and brought into cultivation by bringing tractors. This is evident from the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 5 to 8. PW.1 specifically states that as part of his duty, he need to supervise the area under Gouraram village, Nallavelli village, Kona thanda, Pati thanda and another thanda falling under
Indalwai Forest Range. Here, there is need of filing of documentary evidence in order to say that the disputed land pertains to Forest Department. So, the prosecution placed the oral evidence of PW.1 being a Forest Beat
Officer. Moreover, he is section officer of the said department of the Unit Forest Range Office at Indalwai.
So, his evidence is the best evidence to know which land falls under Indalwai Range. Moreover, in the cross- examination nothing was suggested to PW.1 or other witnesses to the occurrence that the incident was taken place not at the forest land and it pertains to
Raghunathpally revenue village area. Moreover, it was 50 SC 45-2014 elicited from the evidence of PW.1 that accused along with other villagers went on Dharna demanding that 1000 acres of Raghunathpally should be distributed among them.
So, it is for the accused to bring that Raghunathpally village falls under revenue village and lands found in it are revenue lands which pertain to the Government. But, this fact though admitted by PW.1, not having any hold on the contention of the accused that prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence to show that the offence was taken place in forest land and not in the forest land. Moreover, as seen from the evidence of PW.25, he deposed that on 15.9.2013 he received SP proceedings,
Ex.P86 and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, verified the investigation done by PW.24 and found to be on proper lines. As seen from the evidence of PW.24, on 15.9.2013 at the instructions of Dy.
Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of PW.10 and LW.16/P. Poshetty and the place of offence is described in Ex.P3 document is, outskirts of
Nallavelli village in Sy.No.309 of Gouraram Reservoir
Forest, compartment No.426, place is at Pedda Banda.
Even this fact is also found in Ex.P1 complaint. So, this fact was supported by PW.1 and also established through PWs 24 and 25 who are Investigating Officers rushed to the scene immediately after the incident on 15.9.2013 i.e. on the next day. So, the prosecution placed the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 8 and PWs 24 and 25 and Ex.P1, P3 and P4 documents and it is clearly established with the oral and documentary evidence that 51 SC 45-2014 the scene of offence is located in compartment No.426 at
Pedda Banda, which belongs to Forest Department and accused persons do not have any right to enter into the land and their intention through their activities and behaviour expressly shows that they went to grab the land of Forest Department. Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act is made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery was being made from A4, A15, A19. Further, recovery was being made from
A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused. So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the
Court found that these persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they made an attack and killed the deceased
Gangaiah. Hence, the prosecution has established that
accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 in prosecution of their common object and tried to grab the Govt. land and they are liable for punishment are liable for the offence u/s 3 and 4 of P Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of prosecution.
22. Point No.8: Whether the prosecution established A1 to A24 and A27 to A37 not being the members of SC/ST and attacked against R. Gangaiah who belongs to SC and killed him and they are liable u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act?
52 SC 45-2014 22.1 As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8, it is evident that the deceased R. Gangaiah, Forest
Range Officer, belongs to SC community and as seen from the evidence of PW.19 S. Rajeshwar, Dy. Tahsildar,
Bodhan, deposed that on requisition from Sub-Divisional
Police Officer, Nizamabad, PS Dharpally, he issued caste certificates of deceased Rodda Gangaiah and that as per certificates the deceased belonged to SC-Madiga Caste.
The accused since long period conducting Dharnas and just 5 days prior to the incident they conducted Dharna and they know very well about the caste of the deceased and also made threat to the persons who obstructed them.
Moreover, they recognized the persons at the time of incident as Forest Officer and made attack. So, accused had knowledge about the caste of the deceased.
Therefore, they attacked the SC caste person and killed him. Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 who are direct witnesses says that all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and out of them specific overt act is made against A1, A2, A15 and specific recovery was being made from A4, A15, A19.
Further, recovery was being made from A5, A7, A8, A9,
A12, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36. These people have confessed about the commission of offence and furnished information about the recoveries made from each accused.
So, therefore, their involvement is fortified through confessions and recovery panchanamas. So, the Court found that these persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they made an attack and killed the deceased Gangaiah. Hence, 53 SC 45-2014 the prosecution has established that accused persons i.e.
A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35
and A36 in prosecution of their common object attacked the deceased R. Gangaiah and caused injuries in order to do away his life and caused homicidal death and they are liable for punishment u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC.
23. In the result, A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC.
ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iii)A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
54 SC 45-2014 vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 148 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
vii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 332 r/w 149 of IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
viii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of September 2017
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/ STs (PoA)Act, Nizamabad
Date: 25-09-2017
Accused are heard under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. with regard to the sentence. The accused stated that they never committed the alleged offences and they are having children, old aged parents and prayed to take a lenient view.
Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to take lenient view in awarding punishment for the offences u/s 302 and 307 r/w 149 IPC and u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC.
55 SC 45-2014
i) A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons
i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35
and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for LIFE and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each.
iii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for 10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15,
A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the offence u/s 56 SC 45-2014 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo
RI for 10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs.
Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months each
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence u/s 148 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1,
A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36
found guilty for the offences u/s 148 IPC and convicted
therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to
undergo RI for TWO YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of
Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each
vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are
found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the
offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons
i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35
and A36 found guilty for the offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC and
convicted therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are
sentenced to undergo RI for THREE YEARS and they shall also pay
a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of
payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of
ONE MONTH each vii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 are
found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the
offence u/s 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC, but
rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9,
A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found for the offence
57 SC 45-2014
3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w 149 IPC and convicted
therefor under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to
undergo RI for SIX MONTHS and they shall also pay a fine of
Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds
of A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A25,
A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 shall stand
cancelled after expiry of six months from this day. The concerned owners ofMOs 11, 12, 26 and 27 which are Tractors bearing Nos.3724, 7763, 5749 and 8108 are directed to produce the said Tractors forthwith and Police are directed to confiscate the said Tractors to the State. MOs 1 to 10, 13 to 25 and 28 shall be shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
The pre-detention period of A4: 22-9-2013 to 24-12- 2013(93) days, A5: 24-9-2013 to 24-12-2013 (91) days,
A7,A8,A9 and A12: 24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36) days,
A15:22-9-2013 to 24-12-2013 (93) days, A16:24-9-2013 to 23-10-2013 (29) days, A17:24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36) days, A20: 24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36) days, A22: 24-9- 2013 to 23-11-2013 (60) days, A35: 8-10-2013 to 30-10- 2013 (22) days, A36: 29-10-2013 to 11-11-2013 (43) days, days shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
The accused are informed about their right of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the conviction and sentence and they are further informed that if they do not have means to engage advocate, the advocate will be appointed at the expense of the state on 58 SC 45-2014 their applications to the State Legal Services Authority
Hyderabad.
Pronounced by dictation to the Stenographer,
transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on this the 25 th day of September 2017.
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/ STs (PoA)Act, Nizamabad -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE ::- Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence
Pw1 Sri Mohammed Maqbool None Pw2 Sri Syed Moinuddin -- Pw3 Sri Chatapuram Mohan -- Pw4 Smt. Rodda Hemalatha -- Pw5 Sri Rodda Gangaram -- Pw6 Sri Kamashetty Yadagiri Pw7 Sri Syed Shabbir Ahmed Pw8 Sri Vorakunta Bhumaiah Pw9 Sri Shaiba Vaikuntam Pw10 Sri Thalari Sailu Pw11 Sri Palthiya Balram Pw12 Sri Bangu Balaiah Pw13 Sri Bathula Praveen Kumar Pw14 Sri Machukuri Sayanna Pw15 Sri Komma Ashok Pw16 Dr. Balraj, CAS Pw17 K. Veena, Tahsildar Pw18 Sri Y. Sudershan, Tahsildar, Pw19 Sri S. Rajeshwar, Tahsildar Pw20 Dr. P. Shirish Kumar, CAS Pw21 Sri A. Damodar, Sub- Inspector of Police, IO Pw22 Sri J. Naresh, Sub-Inspector of Police, IO Pw23 Sri Ravi, Sub-Inspector of Police, IO. Pw24 Sri P. Srishylam, CIP, IO Pw25 Sri S. Anil Kumar, Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad, IO ::- Exhibits marked ::-
Ex.P1 Complaint --Nil -- Ex.P2 Set of photographs (14 in -- number) Ex.P3 Scene of offence panchanama -- Ex.P4 Rough sketch -- Ex.P5 Inquest panchanama Ex.P6 Seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased Ex.P7 Relevant portion of confession -- panchanama of A20 Ex.P8 Recovery panchanama of A20 -- Ex.P9 Relevant portion of confession - panchanama of A22 59 SC 45-2014
Ex.P10 Recovery panchanama of A22 Ex.P11 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A35 Ex.P12 Recovery panchanama of A35 Ex.P13 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A36. Ex.P14 Recovery panchanama of A36 Ex.P15 Seizure panchanama of clothes of the deceased Ex.P16} Confessional panchanamas of to } A1, A2, A4, A15. P19 }
Ex.P20} Recovery panchanamas of A1, to } A2, A4, A15 Ex.P23} Ex.P24 Confession panchanama of A20 Ex.P25 Confession panchanama of A22 Ex.P26 recovery panchanamas of A20 & P27 and A22 Ex.P28 Confession panchanama of A25 Ex.P29 Recovery panchanama of A35 Ex.P30 RC of MO.11/Tractor bearing No.AP-25AG-3724. Ex.P31 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A5 Ex.P32 Recovery panchanama of A5 Ex.P33 Relevant portion of confession & P34 panchanamas of A7 and A8 respectively Ex.P35 Recovery panchanamas of A7 and & P36 A8 Ex.P37 Relevant portion of confession & P38 panchanamas of A9 and A12 respectively Ex.P39 Relevant portion of confession & P40 panchanamas of A12 and A16 respectively Ex.P41 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A16 Ex.P42 Recovery panchanama of A16 Ex.P43 Postmortem examination report Ex.P44} Caste certificates A1 to A15 to P74} and A19 to A34 Ex.P75 Caste certificate of A37 Ex.P76 Caste certificate of PW.1 Ex.P77 Caste certificate of deceased Ex.P78} Injury certificates of PW.20, To P84} LWs 1 to 3, 8 to 10 and 12 Ex.P85 FIR Ex.P86 SP proceedings Ex.P87} Caste certificates of A16 to to P91} A18, A35 and A36 Ex.P92 FSL report. Material objects marked
MO.1 : Dragon light. MO.2 : Axe. MO.3 : Sickle. MO.4 : Control earth. MO.5 : Bloodstained earth. MO.6 : Chilli powder. MO.7 : Pair of cheppals. MO.8 : Stick. MO.9 : Bloodstained stick.
60 SC 45-2014
MO.10: Chilli Power. MO.11: Tractor No.3724. MO.12: Tractor No.7763. MO.13: White and green colour T-shirt. MO.14: Black pant. MO.15: Banyan. MO.16: Underwear. MO.17: Long length stick. MO.18: Small stick. MO.19: One medium stick. MO.20: Chilli powder box. MOs.21 to 25 are sticks. MO.26: Tractor No.5749. MO.27: Tractor No.8108. MO.28: Guage cloth.
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/ STs (PoA)Act, Nizamabad 61 SC 45-2014
CALENDER
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD
PRESENT: SRI MOHD. NURULLAH GHORI
Special Sessions Judge for trial of
cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-
VIII Additional Sessions Judge at
Nizamabad
SC No.45 OF 2014
Between:
The State through Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Nizamabad
..Complainant
AND
Vodde Bhaskar @ Shivarathri Bhaskar & others .. Accused
1. Date of offence : 14-09-2013
2. Date of complaint/report : 15-09-2013
3. Date of apprehension of accused : 21-09-2013, (A1 to A4,A6
A15, A19, A25 to A28)
23-09-2013 (A5, A7 to
A14, A16, A17, A20, A22
to A24, A29 to A34 &
A37) Date: 7.10.2013 A35
Dt.28.10.2013 A36
4. Date of commitment : 15-10-2014
5. Date of commencement of Trial : 04-04-2016
6. Date of closure of trial : 01-08-2017
7. Date of sentence or order : 25-09-2017
8. Charge : Under section 148, 332, 307 and 302 r/w 149
IPC; Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w
149 IPC; Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public
Property Act; Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Land Grabbing Act r/w
149 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act.
9. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
10. Finding of Judge : Details given below
11. Sentence or order :
In the result, A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not
guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence
Sec.15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149
62 SC 45-2014
IPC.
ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s
235(1) for the offence 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the
accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iii)A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s
235(1) for the offence 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the
accused are found guilty for the said offence.
iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s
235(1) for the offence 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w
149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty for the
said offence.
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s
235(1) for the offence 3 of Prevention of Damage to the
Public Property Act, but rest of the accused are found
guilty for the said offence.
vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21,
A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and
A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s
235(1) for the offence u/s 148 IPC, but rest of the
accused are found guilty for the said offence.
vii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19,
A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33,
A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted
u/s 235(1) for the offence 332 r/w 149 of IPC, but rest
of the accused are found guilty for the said offence.
viii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19,
A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33,
A34 and A37 are found not guilty and they are acquitted
u/s 235(1) for the offence 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing
Act r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the accused are found guilty
for the said offence.
Date: 25-09-2017
Accused are heard under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. with
regard to the sentence. The accused stated that they
never committed the alleged offences and they are having
children, old aged parents and prayed to take a lenient
view.
Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by
the accused, this Court is not inclined to take lenient
view in awarding punishment for the offences u/s 302 and
307 r/w 149 IPC and u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w
149 IPC.
63 SC 45-2014
i) A1 to A25 and A27 to A37 are found not guilty and
they are acquitted u/s 235(1) for the offence Sec.15 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act r/w 149 IPC
ii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the
accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the
offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under
section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo
RI for LIFE and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/-
(Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of
fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three
months each.
iii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the
accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are found guilty for the
offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under
section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo
RI for 10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) each, in default of
payment of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period
of three months each
iv) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 149
IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5,
A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are
found guilty for the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA)
Act r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under section
235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for
10 YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs.
Five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine
amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of three months
each
v) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 148 IPC, but rest of the accused
persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16,
A20, A22, A35 and A36 found guilty for the offences u/s
148 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2)
Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for TWO
YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs.
Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount,
they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each
vi) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC, but rest of the
64 SC 45-2014
accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A12,
A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 found guilty for the
offence u/s 332 r/w 149 IPC and convicted therefor under
section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo
RI for THREE YEARS and they shall also pay a fine of
Rs.100/- (Rs. Hundred only) each, in default of payment
of fine amount, they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE
MONTH each
vii) A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23,
A24, A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37
are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 235(1)
for the offence u/s 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w
149 IPC, but rest of the accused persons i.e. A1, A2, A4,
A5, A7, A8, A9, A12, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35 and A36 are
found for the offence 3 and 4 of AP Land Grabbing Act r/w
149 IPC and convicted therefor under section 235(2)
Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo RI for SIX
MONTHS and they shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rs.
Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine amount,
they shall suffer SI for a period of ONE MONTH each
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds
of A3, A6, A10, A11, A13, A14, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24,
A25, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34 and A37 shall
stand cancelled after expiry of six months from this day.
The concerned owners of MOs 11, 12, 26 and 27 which are
Tractors bearing Nos.3724, 7763, 5749 and 8108 are
directed to produce the said Tractors forthwith and
Police are directed to confiscate the said Tractors to
the State. MOs 1 to 10, 13 to 25 and 28 shall be shall
be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
The pre-detention period of A4: 22-9-2013 to 24-12-
2013(93) days, A5: 24-9-2013 to 24-12-2013 (91) days,
A7,A8,A9 and A12: 24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36) days,
A15:22-9-2013 to 24-12-2013 (93) days, A16:24-9-2013 to
23-10-2013 (29) days, A17:24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36)
days, A20: 24-9-2013 to 30-10-2013 (36) days, A22: 24-9-
2013 to 23-11-2013 (60) days, A35: 8-10-2013 to 30-10-
2013 (22) days, A36: 29-10-2013 to 11-11-2013 (43) days,
days shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
The accused are informed about their right of appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court against the conviction and
sentence and they are further informed that if they do
not have means to engage advocate, the advocate will be
appointed at the expense of the state on their
applications to the State Legal Services Authority
Hyderabad.
Spl.Sessions Judge for trial
of cases under SCs & STs (PoA)Act,
Nizamabad To The Registrar (Judl.),
Hon’ble High Court of for the State of Telangana and for
the State of A.P. Hyderabad.